1. Faculty Compensation Update Budget Planning Council – January 2016 1

2. Faculty Compensation Task Force Charge  Develop a multi-year plan to maximize our investment in faculty compensation to attract and retain talented faculty  Include full time tenure-track and Group II faculty on Athens and regional campuses  Analyze comparative faculty compensation data  Identify appropriate peer comparisons  Determine goals for competitive average salary position  Project the costs for attaining that position over three years 2

3. Methodology  To project where each university would be in three years, the change in salary over the previous three years was used to calculate a three- year average salary increase trend for each university.  This trend is then applied to the total salary base in the starting year to get a new salary base for the next year  This increase was compounded each year for three years to get the total salary base in Year 3  That Year 3 base was then divided by the total number of faculty to get an average salary in year 3 and that average salary was then used to project the relative ranking for each university in Year 3  This relative ranking provided the amount that needed to be added to the Ohio University total base salary in order to overtake the total base salary of the university in the 3 rd position  See example on next slide … 3

4. Methodology 4  The 3-year average is applied to the total salary base in 12-13 to project the total salary base for 13-14  That base is divided by the N to get the projected average salary for 13-14  This is done again for Year 2 and Year 3 to determine the 15-16 (Year 3) average salary  The difference between the Ohio University total salary base and that for the university in third position was divided by 3 to get the Additional Salary Increase that was needed to move OHIO into the third position

5. Original Projection 5  Task Force report projected 15-16 salaries and rankings starting with 12-13 data  Year 1 Implementation started with 13-14 data to project 16-17 salaries

6. Results After Year 1 6 Original Plan was based on 2012-13; Year 1 Implementation occurred in FY 2015 with impact reflected in 2014-15 salary and ranking

7. Results After Year 1 7 Original Plan was based on 2012-13; Year 1 Implementation occurred in FY 2015 with impact reflected in 2014-15 salary and ranking

8. Results After Year 1 8 Original Plan was based on 2012-13; Year 1 Implementation occurred in FY 2015 with impact reflected in 2014-15 salary and ranking

9. Updated Projection – Year 2 9  The Year 2 Implementation now starts with 14-15 actual data to project 16-17 salaries and rankings  The three year trends used to make the projection are also updated

10. Summary  Plan has begun to have a positive effect – better rankings and smaller gaps compared to #3  Original projection – $1.2M investment each year for three years = $3.6M total  Updated Year 2 Projection - $890K investment each year for the remaining two years = $1.76M  This methodology is somewhat volatile since trends are influenced by retirements and promotions as well as general salary inflation 10

11. Summary  As a result, we did better than originally expected at the Professor rank, about as predicted at the Associate Professor rank and less than expected at the Assistant Professor rank 11

12. Non-Tenure Track and Regional Faculty  These faculty groups received the same percentage investment as Athens Group I faculty  This was 2.19% in Year 1  With the results from Year 1 being better than expected overall, this will be 1.36% in Year 2 12